Talk:Supreme Court
According to the court cases there is always one a year so i guess this was it. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 01:08, March 24, 2011 (UTC) Special Supreme Court elections, 2011 Hello. I am announcing elections to replace Arthur Jefferson (who has resigned) and the Secretary of Justice position to be filled in. Even if I can't do this, we need him replaced anyway, as I need to sue somebody. :P --[[User:Jeffwang16|'J']]•''t'' 00:09, December 29, 2011 (UTC) Candidacies Note: You can only be candidating in one of these positions. Supreme Court Judge * NAME HERE *: PARTY AFFILIATION *: USERNAME *: NOTES Secretary of Justice * Bill An *: *: User:Jeffwang16 *: Just wanting to fill in a position. :P We already have a secretary of justice, and there are no supreme court elections. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:32, December 29, 2011 (UTC) :: No offence but that's why, Jeff, can't be an admin. No offence again but you need to have some basic understanding of Lovia and not just make stuff up. I like the political enthusiasm tho . But again Judges are appointed not elected. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:23, December 29, 2011 (UTC) New case On behalf of my client, the Government of Seven, I would like to file the following case: *''The Government of Seven v. The Lovian Final Peace Party'' on the grounds that my client believes they have illegally founded the settlement of Alentasana on part of the territory of the State of Seven. Thank you for your time. --Thad Tsokos (Tsokos Bros.) :I believe this is a violation of the Constitution Article 5.3.1: "The Governor may decide on the construction, destruction, re-organization of neighborhoods and hamlets in that specific state." Though I must point out the current phrasing is rather ambiguous. It would be more clear if it was "Solely the Governor..." --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:24, May 12, 2012 (UTC) ::That's true, though they could also argue that there's a legal precedent with the formation of Amish Kinley. --Semyon 09:02, May 12, 2012 (UTC) :::Well, as far as I know, Adlibitan Island is not in private hands. The entire island is owned by the State of Seven. Therefore, it is up to the state to decide whether they sell the grounds on which the village has been built to Lee Feng (or one of his students, creating a second Amish Kinley), or accept the village as an official, free village (Feng can't decide who is living there then), or give Feng a licence to stay there while still owning the ground (though not as an official address), or keep the grounds theirs and remove Feng. In the last case: if Feng does not leave, you can file a law suit. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:07, May 12, 2012 (UTC) :::Anyway, according to the page Alentasana there are "patrol guards". I would like to redirect you to the outcome of the Galahad v. The Brigade Trial for that. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:10, May 12, 2012 (UTC) :::::I think we shoudln't exactly be starting cases for the sake of starting cases or creating pages that on purpose leads to this. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:15, May 13, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I didn't create the LFPP page. To be honest I need some practise for presenting a case before the Civil War Trials. :) --Semyon 13:44, May 13, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::I understand, actually it may be a good case only because hopefully it rules that a place like a LRC such as amsih kinley can survive since it's had congressional approval and understands Lovia is it's authority with it's own common conucil. The difference being that Alentasana is a place trying to be a seperate state or country so hopefully it rules in favor of the state and the peacful amish. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:02, May 13, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::In this case there is no case unless the Governor of Seven rules that the village should be abandoned. Should the inhabitants not leave, then we got a case. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:16, May 13, 2012 (UTC) :::::::Judge R. Wasabi: if they do not move, I suggest the court sends giant mutated rabits to drive them out. :I also believe that this is a violation of the Constitution Article 1A.2 and 1A.4. "Lovia is a democratic and social state, governed by the rule of law, in which human dignity, the citizens' rights and freedoms, the free development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values, in the spirit of the democratic traditions of the Lovian people and shall be guaranteed." "In Lovia, the observance of the Constitution, its supremacy and the laws shall be mandatory." The violation of the Constitution in public lands in that the town is government as a dictatorship by Mr. Feng is not acceptable on lands owned by Seven. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:18, June 10, 2012 (UTC) A new era dawns I the rightful King, Philip I of Lovia, hereby claim and demand the rights and recognition due to my position. As eldest son of the late King Arthur, legally and morally his true heir according to the Constitution and Lovian tradition, I request the Supreme Court to act justly and depose the pretender Sebastian from the throne where he has set himself. I was chosen by the heavens, in the name of my ancestors, to take upon myself this great task. My time to shine was stolen from me by my ungrateful cousins. They are capitalist pigs who know nothing of the ordinary lives of ordinary Lovians. A new Red sun is dawning. Now is the time for Lovia to decide which of two destinies it will choose: that of the past, gloomy, dusty, reeking of the oppression of the proletariat; or that of the future, bright, full of hope and gloriously Red. Long live the King! --Philip the Red, King of Lovia in Exile, Lord of the Western Isles, Heir of the Lashawns, Comrade of the Poor, Friend of the Weak, Priatel of all Oceanans, Equal yet Above all Creation. :We have noted your request to begin a case against Sebastian Noble. You will be asked to commence the first round of your prosecution in due course. --Justice Arthur Ismagiloff ::Guys, there are still no judges :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:12, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::Cannot allow the law to rain on our parade. King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 10:14, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::Yes, there are - Ismagiloff, Brown and Madison. --Semyon 11:11, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::No, their term has already ended. Therefore, we do not have any judges. Do you want me to sue the Supreme Court for corruption? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:10, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::No, Congress authorised them to continue - 'if this law is passed, then that indicates the current Judges can stay in their posts, since no-one seems particularly interested in replacing them.' :P --Semyon 12:23, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Nice try :P It also said: "If you have a major objection, mention it/vote contra. :)" I mentioned it, which means I did not support that second part. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:30, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::Nice try. :P It said to mention a major objection. You only mentioned a huge objection. Now leave, you're obstructing important legal proceedings. :P --Semyon 12:33, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::Shoo, Oos, don't be so Timey! King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 12:34, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::I know enough. Hereby, I declare the Lovian Supreme Court corrupt, and will no longer obey its rulings. :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:36, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::Btw Semyon, you just lost your minor vote :'( --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:36, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::Actually, I think a whiff of uncertainty about the court's legitimacy would heighten the drama. :P --Semyon 12:38, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::::It would. In that case I could declare the outcome invalid if it were too negative for me. Back-up plan. King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 12:40, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::::Anyway, without a Supreme Court, I could do anything I want :o --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:43, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::::::No you can't, you're not the head admin. :P Anyway, I now don't see the point in this trial, if people are going to ignore a verdict that doesn't suit them. :'( We'll have to hold judicial elections. :'( --Semyon 12:44, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::Indeed :P (apart from the head-admin bit :P) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:46, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::Do you know how much this sadifies me? :'( Will you withdraw your objection if I pass over control of Ismagiloff to you? --Semyon 12:47, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::Yeah, cuz you sadified me equally just a few minutes before :'( Considering I'm corrupt, yes I will :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:49, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::Excellent. We just proved corruption is like maths - corruption + lots of corruption = no corruption. :P --Semyon 12:50, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::Hahaha, if I only understood what that calculation meant, I'd be a very happy person :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:52, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::I can arrange for you to receive a certificate stating you understand it. All you have to do is transfer the Premiership to me. :P --Semyon 12:57, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::Wouldn't work. You need to be the head-admin nowadays, if you want to be PM :o --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:59, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::I was kidding Semyon. I will respect the outcome of this trial no matter what. You have my Kingly Word. King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 12:51, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::::Too late. I had to make a deal with Oos which will probably mean you lose this trial. :'( --Semyon 12:52, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::::: :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:54, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::::: King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 13:02, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::The deal's been withdrawn. You're definitely going to lose now. :P --Semyon 13:08, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::It's a good thing the deal was withdrawn, 'cause I don't think Oos, TM and Happy have shown enough interest in the trial. :P --Semyon 21:05, September 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::Time to put some people behind bars. It's been a long time since I last blocked someone, so you guys better don't screw up :P --OuWTB 06:21, September 24, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::I'm back to judge this, not sure about TM. Happy65 Talk CNP ' 07:14, September 24, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::He's around, he hasn't commented at all on the trial though. --Semyon 09:34, September 24, 2013 (UTC) Trial I would like to bring a case before the Supreme Court on behalf of my client, Lindsay Mansell. Tabloid magazine Real News Weekly published a defamatory article on the former queen of Brunant in 2010 and I would like for the magazine to remove said article. They were asked to do so and have never responded. I would like to file the case *''Princess Lindsay of Brunant vs. Real News Weekly on the grounds that said magazine, by publishing unfounded lies, has violated my client's integrity and her right to privacy as stated in the constitution. Thank you very much, --Clara Gordon (Tempest) I don't even think it has, but in any case the page should be deleted by an admin its not needed. Also the Princess would loose on grounds of freedom of speech even if inflamatory or defaming. Miroslav Znalic 03:27, May 17, 2015 (UTC) : The whole point of this case is more for fun and to have another case, which we haven't had in a while. And I don't want the page deleted, it's just the one article about noses falling off and the Colombian mafia :P But the Princess does have a case. RNW has a right to free speech, but how can they expect to have their rights upheld if they do not respect the rights of others. There's already legal precedent in Lovia for such a case and for real world example Wills and Kate v Closer magazine in France is a big one. HORTON11: • 13:35, May 17, 2015 (UTC) But there is a limit to the freedom of speech. Traspes - Dianna Bartol 03:54, May 17, 2015 (UTC) Let the court case begin! Hoffmann KunarianTALK' 10:10, May 17, 2015 (UTC) : We need justices first before a court case can actually begin, so it could take a while. HORTON11: • 13:35, May 17, 2015 (UTC) Anietka Przwalsky-Malsky vs. Sarah Lambert As thu all know, me son Vladek Przwalsky died an horrible death this week after he crasht with him car out for an cleef. I personall hold Sarah Lambert responsible for him death and awnt de put him de court of manslaughter. Him tyrannical way of discrimination led me son de him depresst feelin and him insanity de drive him for that cleef. That pain that go inside of me is undescribable and can only be bettered if she go de jail for him diabolic way of treatin me son. Sarah Lambert him actions y caust all of that political balance in that country de shift by me son him seat being taken over by an unrightfull owner. I therefore ask politle that him seat be returnt de him rightfull owner, that is me, and Lovian Future de bite punisht for him ways of actin by that need of givin me an additional two seats from them and an maximal fine for them action. --Anietka Przwalsky-Malsky 10:41, June 15, 2015 (UTC) The Scriptures tell us that 'pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress.' Sarah Lambert has sinned in her murder of my uncle and justice must be done. 'Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, and I will repay.' This godless court should pay heed to Luke 18, where even the corrupt judge gave the widow her full rights, and they should do the same to my bereaved grandmother. --Timothy Przwalsky 10:50, June 15, 2015 (UTC) Whilst I extend my most sincere condolences to Przwalsky's family and friends, it is inconceivable that Sarah contributed in any way to Vladek's death. Lambert did not act maliciously towards him, nor did she threaten him. She merely outlined her opposition to Vladek joining Lovian Future, given that his socially conservative beliefs were not consistent with those of the party as a whole. As an experienced politician, Vladek would have been able to deal with such criticisms, which Sarah took care to express in a considerate and well-mannered fashion. Whilst it would be inappropriate to comment on the factors that contributed towards Vladek's tragic death, it is clear that there must have underlying factors that drove him to suicide --Liam Mitchell 11:00, June 15, 2015 (UTC) I's very clear in me eye what that underlying factor been: Sarah Lambert him bad way. Sorry words can not give me me son or me rest back. I demand that respect an older woman like me deserve. There is no way an young man like thu can speak down de me so! I hope thie judges take that here in consideration while reviewing that case for Lovian Future that party. --Anietka Przwalsky-Malsky 11:06, June 15, 2015 (UTC) The Court will not hear this case. I offer my sympathies to Mrs. Przwalsky-Malsky and Mr. Przwalsky for the death of their relative, but the case against Ms. Lambert is entirely speculative. Morally, Ms. Lambert need have no qualms about her actions. --Arthur Ismagiloff 11:08, June 15, 2015 (UTC) That here is an violation of me as an person and an violation of that law! N'is it not so that one may not murder another person? Then what has happent here in front of me eyes for all de see? This denial of me right de put that witch de trial is unacceptable! *screams, shouts, before being taken out of the building* --Anietka Przwalsky-Malsky 11:13, June 15, 2015 (UTC) *calm again* What do thu say if I got evidence that miss Lambert sabogated me son him car? Though I thank emotional murder weigh more than other murder, if I get me deserved rest that here way, I hear him gladdle for thu. --Anietka Przwalsky-Malsky 11:23, June 15, 2015 (UTC) Of course, if there is any evidence of such an act, you must produce it. --Arthur Ismagiloff 11:32, June 15, 2015 (UTC) I will produce them materials when I got me sight back. I steel got that ol' shed with tools in me backyard but I first need me readin 'fore I know where de start producin thie materials. Expect me back here within that week. --Anietka Przwalsky-Malsky 11:35, June 15, 2015 (UTC) Here is that truth for all de see. I got me found thie brake pads for Vladek him car, thereon clear damage can be seen. That here damage was brought on by miss Lambert himself. Y got de say that fingerprint proof may not can obtaint no more, 'cause of that time that got over, but I'm shore thu can get that DNA abstract of him on thie pads. I friendle request that Court de ban miss Lambert for all him political and public functions for as long as that case dures. --Anietka Przwalsky-Malsky 17:42, June 24, 2015 (UTC) I think we need to re-establish our nation's justice system before this can begin. My and Mr. Ismagiloff's term expired over a year ago. As for Ms. Przwalsky-Malsky, we will first re-activative our justice system and receive Ms. Lambert's response, and well as hear further arguments from both you and Ms. Lambert, before making a ruling. --Samantha Brown 23:49, June 24, 2015 (UTC) Whatever it take de git me mine justice. --Anietka Przwalsky-Malsky 08:22, June 25, 2015 (UTC) *coughs* --Arthur Ismagiloff 13:13, October 23, 2015 (UTC) Coughin ain't use, 'cuz we all know ye gon' loose them case. Y got de say Y got that proof dat will shock that world. --Anietka Przwalsky-Malsky 16:34, October 23, 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you need a good lawyer to bolster your case. 17:22, October 23, 2015 (UTC) Y am willing de say Y can act as that lawyer for Lovian Future him defence. Y applaud thie actions of that party an miss Lambert for that endin o me brother him evil ways an plan de use that trial de denounce that government him oppression an call for establishin Lovia as a communist paradise. --Milivoy Przwalsky 10:37, October 24, 2015 (UTC) ::BEST. DISCUSSION. EVER. Mezatir [[User:FictiveJ|'FictiveJ']] ([[User talk:FictiveJ|''discuss]]) 00:27, November 5, 2015 (UTC)